Medicare is a genuine American success story, and a lifeline for millions of seniors. PNHP-MO chair Dr. Ed Weisbart details the waste and inefficiency associated with commercial health insurance (including the overpriced and restrictive Medicare Advantage program), and explains how an improved version of traditional Medicare would provide better coverage for all at no additional cost.
Produced by Business for Medicare for All founder Richard Master.
By Ryan Hutson
KMUD News, Redwood Community Radio (Redway, Calif.), April 19, 2019
Humboldt State University’s Kate Buchanan Room was full last week, with community members and students ready to hear from an expert on health care reform. The HSU Associated Students and Pre-Med clubs provided the opportunity for the public to get direct feedback on a subject that has gained attention in recent months: single-payer health care.
Featuring PNHP-MO chair Dr. Ed Weisbart.
Noted whistle-blower, Tarbell.org founder, and Business Initiative for Health Policy president Wendell Potter appeared on “Rising Up With Sonali” on Free Speech TV and Pacifica radio stations on April 19, 2019. He discussed notable recent developments in the single-payer movement, including a Fox News audience cheering the prospect of Medicare for All at a Bernie Sanders town hall event and a precipitous drop in private health insurance stocks.
By Charleen Hsuan, JD, PhD; Renee Y. Hsia, MD, MSc; Jill R. Horwitz, PhD, JD, MPP; Ninez A. Ponce, MPP, PhD; Thomas Rice, PhD; Jack Needleman, PhD, FAAN
HSR – Health Services Research, April 2, 2019
Objective
To examine whether hospitals are more likely to temporarily close their emergency departments (EDs) to ambulances (through ambulance diversions) if neighboring diverting hospitals are public vs private.
Data Sources/Study Setting
Ambulance diversion logs for California hospitals, discharge data, and hospital characteristics data from California’s Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development and the American Hospital Association (2007).
Study Design
We match public and private (nonprofit or for‐profit) hospitals by distance and size. We use random‐effects models examining diversion probability and timing of private hospitals following diversions by neighboring public vs matched private hospitals.
Principal Findings
Hospitals are 3.6 percent more likely to declare diversions if neighboring diverting hospitals are public vs private (P < 0.001). Hospitals declaring diversions have lower ED occupancy (P < 0.001) after neighboring public (vs private) hospitals divert. Hospitals have 4.2 percent shorter diversions if neighboring diverting hospitals are public vs private (P < 0.001). When the neighboring hospital ends its diversion first, hospitals terminate diversions 4.2 percent sooner if the neighboring hospital is public vs private (P = 0.022).
Conclusions
Sample hospitals respond differently to diversions by neighboring public (vs private) hospitals, suggesting that these hospitals might be strategically declaring ambulance diversions to avoid treating low‐paying patients served by public hospitals.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com…
By Don McCanne, M.D.
When a neighboring hospital places its Emergency Department (ED) on ambulance diversion (presumably because it is exceeding capacity), the hospital to which the ambulances are diverted is more likely to place its own ED on ambulance diversion if the neighboring hospital is a public hospital than if it is a private hospital. That is true even if they have lower ED occupancy (suggesting that ambulance diversion is declared for reasons other than exceeding capacity). Further, the diversions are shorter and are ended sooner if the neighboring hospital is public and ends its diversion first (both suggesting that there was no occupancy crisis in the hospital to which the ambulances were diverted).
Private hospital patients are more likely to be insured, paying patients, whereas public hospital patients are more likely to be uninsured or medically indigent patients, or enrolled in the underfunded Medicaid program. This study, which reaches a high degree of statistical significance, demonstrates that hospitals close their EDs when it may not be necessary if a neighboring public hospital with indigent patients has placed their ED on ambulance diversion thus potentially resulting in an influx of non-paying patients.
This suggests that hospitals give a higher priority to business success than they do to patient service in a system in which there is great variability in the patients’ ability to pay for services. But what if every patient was fully covered for health care services? Obviously, a single payer Medicare for All program would eliminate the concern over whether or not the patient has adequate insurance coverage.
If there is truly inadequate capacity in the system, that could be adjusted through regional planning, hospital budgeting with capacity adjustments, and applying the science of queue management. If sloth is the reason for ambulance diversion then, at worst, that might warrant disciplinary action. But getting rid of sorting patients based on ability to pay would be an important step towards moving us closer to a high performance health care system that takes good care of all of us.
Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.
By Frances Gill
The (New Orleans) Lens, April 18, 2019
In late February, Seattle-area U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, introduced a “Medicare for All” bill in Congress that immediately attracted more than 100 Democratic co-sponsors. The legislation, if passed, would provide comprehensive healthcare coverage — medical, dental, prescriptions, long-term care, mental health, and more — to every resident in the United States, with no copays, premiums, or deductibles.
Medicare for All is a wildly popular policy. Recent polls show that 70 percent of Americans support Medicare for All, including 85 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans.
Why, then, has our Representative Cedric Richmond not co-sponsored his fellow Democrat’s bill, one that saves working families money and guarantees healthcare security to every single person in America?
Perhaps he fears that Medicare for All is too pie-in-the-sky. Comprehensive, universal coverage? How could we afford something so extravagant? One estimate from Senator Bernie Sanders’ office calculated that through a combination of progressive income taxes, capital gains and dividends taxes, and limits on tax deductions for the wealthy, we could raise $1.8 trillion over 10 years without needing to raise taxes on the middle and working class.
There are also significant savings associated with transitioning to a Medicare for All program, due to decreased administrative costs and the federal government’s ability to negotiate drug prices. Consequently, even a study from a libertarian think tank, the Mercatus Center, showed that Medicare for All would ultimately save trillions of dollars. Meanwhile, the average family of four with employer-sponsored insurance spent $28,166 on health insurance in 2018. Medicare for All would likely save the average working person thousands of dollars per year by eliminating co-pays, deductibles, and premiums.
Or perhaps Richmond doesn’t want to rock the boat? Isn’t the American healthcare system the envy of the world? But the reality is that we are already spending more money than any other industrialized nation — about double what other rich countries spend per capita — and still achieving worse outcomes.
The U.S. spends a fifth of our GDP on healthcare costs, yet our maternal mortality rate continues to rise, even as the global maternal mortality rate falls. Over the last few years, the rate of congenital syphilis — a completely preventable and debilitating illness — has more than doubled. In Louisiana, Black women are four times more likely to die in childbirth than white women.
Although universal healthcare coverage is not a panacea, it would at least ensure that there are no gaps in coverage during a person’s lifetime, greatly increasing the likelihood that new mothers would receive timely prenatal care.
Perhaps Richmond’s worried about longer wait times, or perhaps he fears that transitioning to Medicare for All will lead to rationing of care. But the reality is that we are already rationing care: patients with money or excellent insurance can get seen quickly, while the rest of us have to wait.
Perhaps Richmond thinks we simply don’t need Medicare for All. After all, thanks to the expansion of Medicaid, hundreds of thousands of Louisianans gained coverage. But currently, 11.4 percent of Louisianans live without health insurance. And for those with insurance, instead of comprehensive care that’s free at the point of service, as Medicare for All would be, insurance companies deliver high premiums, deductibles, copays and denials of service.
Health justice activists have been fighting for universal coverage for decades. Now, in part due to a powerful national coalition formed between National Nurses United, the Democratic Socialists of America, and several other organizations, we are closer than ever before to making this a reality.
Our local New Orleans chapter of the DSA — an organization that has almost 60,000 dues-paying members nationally and hundreds locally — has been building a campaign to demand Medicare for All. We’ve been canvassing our neighborhoods, tabling at public events, organizing community health fairs, and pressuring our politicians. Most importantly, we’ve been listening to the community’s healthcare horror stories. We, the people of New Orleans, are in dire need of better healthcare, and Medicare for All is the only policy tool that can make that happen.
We’ve talked to people who waited weeks to see a specialist because there are so few physicians who accept Medicaid insurance. We’ve spoken with neighbors who paid thousands of dollars in medical bills even though they had insurance. We’ve met people who are afraid to go to the doctor at all — they’re afraid of what they might find and what it might cost. The Medicare for All legislation put forward by Jayapal is sorely needed to correct the inadequacies and failures of our nation’s healthcare system.
Other politicians have also proposed solutions, but they all fall short. Presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke, a former congressman, has spoken in support of the Medicare for America Act, but this program wouldn’t provide universal coverage, and it doesn’t eliminate co-pays, premiums, or deductibles. (Note how the name similarity of “Medicare for All” and “Medicare for America” allows politicians to capitalize on Medicare for All’s popularity by using the #M4A hashtag.)
By retaining private insurance alongside public insurance, Medicare for America would simply perpetuate the tiered, hierarchical system we have now. A crucial aspect of the Medicare for All plan is that it brings everyone together under the same health plan, thus moving us towards a future where everyone has access to the same, high-quality care.
Other approaches, such as the “public option,” which allows individuals to buy into the Medicaid or Medicare programs, have been shown to be deeply ineffective. In 2013, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that this approach would have “minimal impacts” on the number of uninsured Americans.
Our healthcare system is rotten to the core, and half-measures and meager reforms won’t cut it. We need to pursue radical transformation and effect real change. Right now, we have the political opportunity to do so.
Consistently, when we are talking to our fellow constituents in Richmond’s district, we hear the same refrain: of course we want this, of course we need this, how is it possible that our congressman doesn’t support this?
Soon, for the first time in U.S. history, legislation on the implementation of a single-payer healthcare system will be heard before congressional committees. These hearings will be great opportunities to show Louisianans how transformative a Medicare for All program would be.
Richmond has voiced tentative support for the bill, but we need him to turn that talk into action: we need him to co-sponsor this legislation. As the former head of the Congressional Black Caucus, Richmond is a leader on Capitol Hill. We need his leadership on healthcare. Otherwise, his constituents will continue to endure substandard care, to be driven into medical bankruptcy, and to die of preventable illnesses.
If Richmond truly believes that all Louisianans, no matter their income or their age or their medical history, deserve comprehensive healthcare, he will co-sponsor the Medicare for All Act and champion it in the halls of Congress. If he chooses not to do that, we hope he’ll tell us: which of his constituents does he believe should go without healthcare?
Frances Gill is a medical student, co-chair of the Health Care Committee in the New Orleans chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, and a media team leader in Students for a National Health Program.
By Sam Baker
Axios, April 17, 2019
Red states are getting creative as they look for new ways to limit the growth of Medicaid. But in the process those states are taking legal, political and practical risks that could ultimately leave them paying far more, to cover far fewer people.
Why it matters: Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program cover more than 72 million Americans, thanks in part to the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion. Rolling back the program is a high priority for the Trump administration, and it needs states’ help to get there.
The big picture: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, under the leadership of Administrator Seema Verma, has made clear that it wants to say “yes” to new limits on Medicaid eligibility, and has invited states to ask for those limits.
What we’re watching: State-level Republicans are waiting for CMS to resolve two related issues: how much federal funding their versions of Medicaid can receive, and the extent to which they’re able to cap enrollment in the program.
Verma has reportedly told state officials that she wants to use her regulatory power to convert Medicaid funding into a system of block grants — which would be an enormous rightward shift and probably a big cut in total funding.
Where it stands: GOP lawmakers in a handful of states are looking to Utah, which has bet big on Verma’s authority, for signals about what’s possible.
What’s next: Utah is not the only red state leaning into Verma’s agenda, but it’s further out on a limb than any other.
If CMS does move forward on any of this, it could face the same threat of lawsuits that have stymied its first big Medicaid overhaul — work requirements.
“There’s a clear agenda here to get a handful of states to take up these waivers, which fundamentally undermine the central tenets of the Medicaid program — which [are] that it is a guarantee of coverage, and a guarantee of federal funding,” Alker said.
By Don McCanne, M.D.
Conservatives in Congress have longed for a conversion of the federal contribution for state Medicaid programs into block grants – a mechanism by which federal spending on Medicaid could be reduced. The states would either have to fund the difference, or, as the conservative states prefer, they would reduce spending on health care for the vulnerable, low-income beneficiaries served by Medicaid. But the resistance to this change has been great. Even with the Republicans in control of both Congress and the White House, they have not been able to enact these changes.
It appears that CMS Administrator Seema Verma is plotting to bypass Congress by using the Medicaid waiver process to allow states to place lower caps on Medicaid spending and on Medicaid enrollment. This would have essentially the same impact as block grants – reducing federal spending while giving the states greater control over their own programs. For a program that is already severely underfunded, this could have a very negative impact on the health care providers who are already struggling to try to make this program work for their indigent patients.
If we had a well designed, single payer Medicare for All program, there would be no need to maintain a separate health care financing program for low-income individuals and families. But since a single payer program could not possibly be enacted in the current session of Congress, it is imperative that we pull all stops to temporarily protect the Medicaid program until we can transition to single payer Medicare for All.
One noted conservative columnist recently condemned some of the progressives for calling the conservative Republicans cruel because of their policies that attempt to take health care away from the people. Well, they could probably escape the label of cruel if only they would quit being cruel.
Speaking of being cruel, what about those Democrats who say that we should reject single payer Medicare for All just so we can protect the employer-sponsored plans for which the 66 million people who leave their jobs each year are not eligible, and for which millions of others lose their continuity of care because of changes in employer plans, and for which tens of millions are potentially exposed to financial hardship because of excessive out-of-pocket spending requirements? That’s not cruel? Democrats and Republicans, shape up!
Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.
By Zirui Song, M.D., Ph.D. and Katherine Baicker, Ph.D.
JAMA, April 16, 2019
Key Points
Question: What is the effect of a multicomponent workplace wellness program on health and economic outcomes?
Findings: In this cluster randomized trial involving 32,974 employees at a large US warehouse retail company, worksites with the wellness program had an 8.3-percentage point higher rate of employees who reported engaging in regular exercise and a 13.6-percentage point higher rate of employees who reported actively managing their weight, but there were no significant differences in other self-reported health and behaviors; clinical markers of health; health care spending or utilization; or absenteeism, tenure, or job performance after 18 months.
Meaning: Employees exposed to a workplace wellness program reported significantly greater rates of some positive health behaviors compared with those who were not exposed, but there were no significant effects on clinical measures of health, health care spending and utilization, or employment outcomes after 18 months.
From the Introduction
Workplace wellness programs have become increasingly popular as employers have aimed to lower health care costs and improve employee health and productivity. In 2018, 82% of large firms and 53% of small employers in the United States offered a wellness program, amounting to an $8 billion industry. This growth has been aided by public investments such as the Affordable Care Act, which included funds to promote the development of workplace wellness programs.
Conclusions
Among employees of a large US warehouse retail company, a workplace wellness program resulted in significantly greater rates of some positive self-reported health behaviors among those exposed compared with employees who were not exposed, but there were no significant differences in clinical measures of health, health care spending and utilization, and employment outcomes after 18 months. Although limited by incomplete data on some outcomes, these findings may temper expectations about the financial return on investment that wellness programs can deliver in the short term.
By Don McCanne, M.D.
With the very high costs of health care in the United States, it is no wonder that businesses latched onto products offered by the purveyors of wellness programs that promised lower costs for their employer-sponsored health plans, not to mention the benefit of having a healthier workforce. Great concept, so how is it working out?
Roughly a tenth of the employees in this meticulous study of a wellness program reported that they were more attentive to their personal exercise and weight management programs, “but there were no significant differences in clinical measures of health, health care spending and utilization, and employment outcomes after 18 months.” It did not produce the outcomes the employer was promised.
Employers have tremendous problems with their health benefit programs. The costs continue to increase. Employment is unstable with 66 million leaving their jobs each year. Continual changes in insurers, provider networks and benefits covered increase the instability of health care for the workers and their families. And now this desperate attempt to create “wellness” is failing them.
Quite a few years ago, I co-authored a paper with the chairman and CEO of a Fortune 100 company who was also the chair of the Health Committee of the Business Roundtable. The topic was Medicare for All. The intent was to show that an icon of the business world and a health care justice activist could come together to support health care reform that would work well for all of us. Although the article was encouraged by the editor of the leading health policy journal, a junior editor was assigned to send us the rejection notice. The medical-industrial complex was simply not ready for a single payer model of reform.
But look at the wealth of health policy knowledge that has continued to spring up. By any objective criteria, the single payer Medicare for All model is vastly superior in that it achieves all essential goals of reform while using a financing system that is equitable and affordable for each of us. About that last point, none of the other models come close on affordability for all individuals and families, yet, with our three and a half trillion dollar health care bill, we absolutely have to get that one right. Besides, enacting and implementing a health care financing system that works for all of us sounds to me like a pretty good start to a universal wellness program.
Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.
By Philip Caper, M.D.
Bangor (Maine) Daily News, April 17, 2019
I agree with Sen. Angus King’s frustration, expressed in his March 31 BDN OpEd, with the seemingly endless debate about how best to provide access to health care to all Americans. I have known King for more than 40 years, dating back to the time we were both on the staff of the U.S. Senate. In general, I agree with King’s politics, and admire his skills as a politician. But in the case of the debate about health care, I disagree with his analysis.
In his OpEd, King decries the Groundhog Day nature of our national health care debate, yet advocates putting yet another patch on the Affordable Care Act rather than replacing it with something better.
He writes, “The ACA isn’t perfect, but it’s made people’s lives better, and that’s worth building on by making simple fixes around the edges rather than tearing it apart or repealing it entirely.” His sentiment is a noble one. But, as Albert Einstein once put it, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” There have been many attempts to patch up our insurance-and-market-based system. All have failed.
In Maine, Dirigo Healthcare is a prime example. It was launched in 2003 by then-Gov. John Baldacci but never achieved its coverage goals and was allowed to sunset in 2014 by Baldacci’s successor, Gov. Paul Le Page — with hardly a whimper from the public.
In Massachusetts, Romneycare achieved better coverage than did Dirigo, but it has failed to reign in out-of-control health care costs. As a result single-payer health care bills have once again been introduced in the Massachusetts Legislature.
Patching our fundamentally flawed insurance-based system will not solve our health care problems. The problem is not one of designing better insurance, because insurance itself is the problem.
Medical underwriting, the fundamental business of commercial insurance, is all about finding ways to discriminate against sick people or those who are likely to become sick, in order to increase shareholders’ profits. Do we really want a health care financing system that discriminates against sick people? We need to create a system better than insurance.
The ACA lacks adequate cost controls when we’re already spending too much and getting poor results for our money. Furthermore, patches to the ACA will do nothing to fix the extreme fragmentation of our current health care system. That would only contribute to the ongoing confusion and polarization about health care reform that have created our current political gridlock.
Improved Medicare for all would introduce sorely lacking budgets into every level of the system, going a long way toward controlling out-of-control health care costs. And a gradual transition to a new and better system can limit the disruption that is inevitable with any change of this magnitude.
King is a very smart and thoughtful politician with a sophisticated understanding of the complexities of American health care. But on this issue he’s a bit too cautious. He has yet to endorse improved Medicare for all, the one solution that would put an end to his Groundhog Day.
Winston Churchill once said, “Americans will always do the right thing, once they’ve exhausted all alternatives.” Now is the time.
Dr. Philip Caper is an internist and founding board member of Maine AllCare.
By Drew Altman
Axios, April 15, 2019
There has been appropriate handwringing since 2010 about the affordability of Affordable Care Act plans in the marketplaces. But new data show that health insurance is decidedly less affordable for lower income people who get coverage at work than for their counterparts with similar incomes in the marketplaces.
Why it matters: It’s another example of how, when we focus so much on the ACA markets, we lose sight of problems in the employer-based health system where far more people get their coverage. For lower-wage workers, their coverage is decidedly worse than ACA coverage is.
The details: A low-income family with a marketplace plan pays 8.4% of their income on premiums and out-of-pocket costs, compared to 14% for a lower-wage family with employer coverage (those with incomes below twice the poverty level).
How it breaks down:
The largest share of group insurance premiums, paid by employers, also depresses wages for lower-wage and other workers.
Between the lines: It’s not really surprising that marketplace enrollees do better. The ACA provides financial protections for lower-income people enrolled in subsidized health plans in the marketplaces or in Medicaid, and there are no similar income-based subsidies that apply to employer plans.
We tend to think of everyone with employer coverage as one big group, but it’s really lower wage workers — and, while it’s a different subject, also people with major illnesses — who take it on the chin in the current private health insurance system. They are also the group with employer coverage who would benefit the most from a Medicare-for-All style plan.
The bottom line: Employer-based coverage is by far the largest source of health insurance, and it now provides the least financial protection for lower income workers who need it most. We debate affordability in the ACA marketplaces a lot, but we don’t talk about this far larger problem much, if at all.
Drew Altman is President and CEO, Kaiser Family Foundation.
Peterson-Kaiser report:
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org…
By Don McCanne, M.D.
The war cry to protect employer-sponsored health plans by rejecting single payer Medicare for All is growing louder each day. Little does it matter that 66 million people leave their jobs each year and lose their employer-sponsored insurance, if it had even been offered. But look at what Drew Altman has to say about employees who have low incomes or major illnesses:
“We tend to think of everyone with employer coverage as one big group, but it’s really lower wage workers — and… also people with major illnesses — who take it on the chin in the current private health insurance system. They are also the group with employer coverage who would benefit the most from a Medicare-for-All style plan.”
Get that? They take it on the chin from private insurance, and they would benefit the most from a Medicare-for-All style plan.
Moderate politicians and the media are so sure that the threat of losing employer coverage will cause individuals to reject single payer Medicare for All that they keep repeating it, over and over.
Yesterday presidential candidate and single payer advocate Bernie Sanders held a town hall on enemy territory – Fox News. Fox host Brett Baier set Sanders up by asking the audience, “How many people get their insurance from work, private insurance, right now?” Most hands went up. He then asked, “Of those, how many are wiling to transition, to what the Senator says, a government run system?” expecting most hands to go down. Not only did most hands go back up, the response was accompanied with cheers. Not even the Fox News audience is buying the baloney that people don’t want single payer Medicare for All if it means eliminating insurance through work. For a 21 second video of this highly instructive moment:
Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.
By Dr. Tom Hayhurst
The (Fort Wayne, Ind.) Journal Gazette, April 16, 2019
I note that a federal judge recently made a decision potentially invalidating the Affordable Care Act. President Donald Trump subsequently stated he fully supported repeal of the ACA. He went on to tout what he described as a much better health care plan but offered no details.
Repealing the ACA would leave more than 20 million of our currently insured fellow citizens without adequate health insurance. Having reviewed his website, I am not aware of the position of Rep. Jim Banks regarding this matter, which is important to many citizens of northeast Indiana.
Independent studies indicate that thousands of our fellow citizens die each year because they do not have health insurance. As a doctor, I am the volunteer director of the Multi-County Medical Outreach Clinic in Columbia City. With vigorous support from Parkview Health and many agencies and individuals throughout the region, we provide free health care for the working poor (from any county) who are either uninsured or underinsured.
In that setting I have seen many who have been driven into bankruptcy by large medical bills after hospitalization for serious illness. I am also aware of others who have died because of a lack of health insurance. For example, I cared for a 41-year-old man who presented to a local emergency department at 3 a.m. gasping for air with a temperature of 104 and almost no detectable blood pressure. He had extensive pneumonia, did not respond to vigorous treatment and died a few hours later in the intensive care unit. He had delayed seeking medical care because he had lost his job and his health insurance.
Many of our current 30 million (50 million if the ACA is repealed) uninsured fellow citizens face this choice every day. Some are lucky enough to avoid serious consequences of their decision. Many others suffer death or disability or bankruptcy. I have seen it firsthand.
So where do we go from here? At the least, we need to make sure that every citizen has affordable health insurance. The most efficient way to do this would be to gradually expand Medicare to include every citizen.
Medicare has been around since the 1960s and has many advantages over other forms of health insurance. Cost controls have gradually been put into place which help verify that costs are necessary and sensible and appropriate. Pharmaceutical costs will decrease significantly when the government allows competitive bidding for medications under Medicare Part D – which it has blocked for more than a decade. Medicare overhead is much less than that of private sector health insurance companies – 4% to 5% as opposed to 20% to 25% for the private health insurance industry.
The high overhead typical of private health insurance results in billions of wasted dollars. How else would the private health insurance industry afford $100 million+ bonuses for their executives?
There are many who make gloom-and-doom predictions for government health care programs, including U.S. and Canadian Medicare. They complain continually about rationing of health care in Canada. Recently I spoke with a Canadian visitor who had presented to a Canadian hospital with chest discomfort and a possible heart attack. That gentleman was seen by a cardiologist within minutes after arrival.
There is already extensive health care rationing in the USA. The patient I described earlier suffered from health care rationing as a result of poverty. I should add that essentially all Medicare services in the USA are provided by the private sector; the government acts only as an efficient insurance agent.
The Feb. 26 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association contains an excellent article: “Rationing of Health Care in the United States.” The article concludes: “It has been said many times that in the richest country in the world, in which many of the greatest scientific and medical advances are developed, it is a blight on the U.S. soul that each of its residents does not fully benefit from available health care.”
That quote touches on the aspect of the health care debate that concerns me greatly – the immorality of needless death, disability and financial ruin in our country, which declares it is a God-fearing, “religious” country. Some faith leaders speak out on this moral issue.
But why aren’t we hearing an outcry from more religious leaders to solve this moral and economic “blight on the soul of America”?
Our goal should be eventual “Medicare for All”; it surpasses all other options for making affordable quality health care available to every U.S. citizen.
Dr. Tom Hayhurst is a physician and former member of Fort Wayne City Council.
By Garrett Adams, M.D., M.P.H.
Louisville Courier Journal, April 15, 2019
American health care is in continuing crisis. Access is declining, and costs are out of control. Medical bankruptcies, unheard of in other developed countries, still plague us. Even though the U.S. spends nearly twice as much per capita on health care, our health outcomes are far worse than other comparable nations. For example, way more American women die of pregnancy-related complications than in any other developed country, and the rate is rising.
Statistics are people with the tears wiped dry.
What’s wrong? Corporate profiteering. Corporations squeeze the insured, you, for every nickel to pay their dividends and increase cash value. Insurance companies raise premiums, deductibles and co-pays; they deny claims and contrive to insure only healthy (cheap) people.
The patchwork of private insurance costs our nation billions in administration, billing and collecting — amounting to a full third of health care expenditures. Hospitals track every pill and bandage and charge patients and hundreds of different insurers for each item. Physicians spend an average of nine hours a week with a jumble of plans for billing, preapproval and payment. It is taking a toll on the profession in burnout, early retirement, depression and suicide. Patients are angry and frustrated by the bureaucratic maze of filing claims, with justifiable claims often rejected.
Medicare Advantage, which privatizes Medicare, is burdened with fraud and poor cost control. Insurance companies selling Advantage plans bilked the government for an estimated $70 billion between 2008 and 2013.
The U.S. system isn’t about improving health care; it’s about profit. Single-payer changes the dynamic; with single-payer the system becomes patient-oriented, not profit-oriented.
Single-payer means ONE payer, the government, pays the bills while health care delivery (doctors and hospitals) remain in private hands. The wasteful bureaucracy of private health insurance goes away. The government becomes the insurer. Coverage is unhooked from employment, allowing workers to change jobs or start new businesses.
What about workers for insurance companies, such as Humana, when single-payer replaces private insurance? The new system will need their administrative experience. Moreover, single-payer legislation specifies that displaced workers be provided retraining and two years of salary. Many, who are health care workers themselves, will move back to actually providing care. And, like all of us, they and their families will have all medically necessary care as a right!
In 2003 the first single-payer bill in the U.S. Congress was tagged the Medicare-for-All bill. The name stuck. Today there are many “Medicare-for-All’s.” However, only two are single-payer plans, one House and one Senate version. They provide for publicly financed, nonprofit national health insurance that fully covers medical care for all Americans.
Drug companies, for-profit hospitals, insurance companies and others invested in profit-based care are campaigning vigorously against single-payer, spreading misinformation and fearmongering. Industry-aligned anti-single-payer individuals are posing as ordinary citizens spreading misinformation about single-payer.
Don’t believe the lies. National health plans work extraordinarily well in every other industrialized nation. Canada, Scotland, Sweden, Taiwan, and Japan (among dozens of others) cover their entire population for a fraction of what the U.S. spends (wastes!) and enjoy longer lifespans and better health outcomes. How will we pay for it? An American single-payer plan will pay for itself by redirecting wasted administration and profiteering funds into patient care. Consider the vast difference in cost: From 2007 to 2014, spending in private plans grew nearly 17 percent per enrollee, while Medicare spending decreased 1.2 percent per beneficiary.
Congressman John Yarmuth has represented the 3rd District of Kentucky in the House of Representatives with honor and distinction since 2006, and he has always been a single-payer champion. As chairman of the budget committee, he called for Medicare-for-All hearings. He knows that a majority of Americans support single-payer, but he has recently withdrawn his support. Chairman Yarmuth should continue to represent the will of the people and give single-payer his wholehearted endorsement.
Single-payer will have an immediate healing effect on all our people, and it will arrest our surging wealth inequality. Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.” With single-payer, in one transformative action, on at least one level, everyone becomes the same, and we seriously commit to a true democracy with justice for all.
Dr. Garrett Adams is a founding member of Physicians for National Health Program – Kentucky and a member of the group’s national board.
By Brooke Seipel
The Hill, April 15, 2019
The audience at a Fox News town hall erupted in cheers and applause when asked by moderator Bret Baier if they would support Sen. Bernie Sanders‘s (I-Vt.) “Medicare for All” proposal.
“I want to ask the audience a question here. … How many are willing to transition to what the senator says, a government-run system?” Baier asked before the crowd burst into cheers.
Bret Baier just polled the Bernie Town Hall audience who would be willing to switch to #MedicareForAll. It backfired spectacularly. pic.twitter.com/dQJ9gfQ137
— jordan (@JordanUhl) April 15, 2019
The question comes a week after Sanders introduced updated Medicare for All legislation in the Senate.
His proposed bill would largely eliminate private insurance and institute a single-payer system managed by the government.
The updated version would also include coverage for long-term care, such as nursing homes, which is not covered by Medicare currently. Home- and community-based care would also be covered.
A number of other 2020 Democratic candidates, including Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), have endorsed Sanders’s legislation.
The White House blasted Sanders’s proposal, however, adding to its past criticism of single-payer plans.
Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders called the plan a “total government takeover of health care that would actually hurt seniors, eliminate private health insurance for 180 million Americans, and cripple our economy and future generations with unprecedented debt.”
Republican leaders have also blasted the bill, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) saying it won’t happen under a GOP-controlled Senate.
Despite criticism, a number of polls have shown both Democratic and Republican voters support Medicare for All. One such poll conducted by The Hill in October showed a majority of Republicans supported single-payer health care. Another poll conducted in January showed that 56 percent of American voters supported such an insurance system.
The video of Sanders on Fox quickly gained attention online Monday, with many pointing to the applause and past polling as examples of support among even conservatives for Medicare for All.
Sanders agreed to a Tax Day town hall on the network, moderated by the “Special Report” anchor Baier and “The Story” anchor Martha MacCallum.
In March, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez announced that the network would be barred from hosting any of the party’s primary debates. Democratic presidential candidates are not precluded from appearing on Fox News for interviews or town halls, however.